hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 17, 2009 16:28:33 GMT -5
Here is a question for any of you chemists/doctors/related scientists etc...
As I understand it, since HGH is a naturally occurring substance, any testing can only be done with respect to concentration, so it would stand to reason that there is no accurate mechanism to measure its use beyond some period of time. Is that true of the "illegal" steroids? In other words, would there be trace amounts of them well after the fact? How long ... months ... years ... ?
If such a test exists, then my proposal would be to have a dedicated wing added to the Hall of Fame, specifically for the steroid era. All athletes from that period would be featured in that wing, with the exception of those that passed such a stringent test. Again, I don't know if such a test is scientifically possible now, or will ever be. But if such a test is, then those who wish to remove all guilt could voluntarily submit to such a test and if they pass, then they could be featured outside of that wing.
I'm sure this will never happen, but just for conversation ...
|
|
|
Post by JohnJacquesLayup on Feb 17, 2009 16:36:43 GMT -5
Not really on topic, but I don't understand the whole argument about banning people from the hall of fame if they have been found guilty (or implicated) of Steroid use. The baseball hall of fame is a museum, and the steroid era is part of the games history.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 17, 2009 17:08:20 GMT -5
That's another point of view for sure layup. I guess there are really a couple of different factors here. First off, as we all know, more than any other sport, baseball is about statistics. As such, those who succeded beyond all others are recognized in special fashion. However, with illegal aid, such achievements are unavoidably questioned. Additionally, as we are coming to realize, it wasn't just this or that individual who decided to benefit from the cutting of corners. And personally, I think that before all is said and done, we will find out that it was almost "the norm." I don't have a shred of evidence, but something much closer to half rather than the 15% that the 104 number would suggest might come to light. In any case, I guess my question to you all is what is the possibility of a testing which would test for the presence of even trace amounts of banned steroids, regardless of when and how much was taken?
And IF SUCH A TEST can be developed, then what about a wing dedicated to the entire era? Only those who prove beyond all doubt would be featured in the rest of the hall, yet as you indicate, the era would be recognized as well as the individual achievements themselves? I think it makes sense.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 17, 2009 19:50:51 GMT -5
Here is a question for any of you chemists/doctors/related scientists etc... As I understand it, since HGH is a naturally occurring substance, any testing can only be done with respect to concentration, so it would stand to reason that there is no accurate mechanism to measure its use beyond some period of time. Is that true of the "illegal" steroids? In other words, would there be trace amounts of them well after the fact? How long ... months ... years ... ? If such a test exists, then my proposal would be to have a dedicated wing added to the Hall of Fame, specifically for the steroid era. All athletes from that period would be featured in that wing, with the exception of those that passed such a stringent test. Again, I don't know if such a test is scientifically possible now, or will ever be. But if such a test is, then those who wish to remove all guilt could voluntarily submit to such a test and if they pass, then they could be featured outside of that wing. I'm sure this will never happen, but just for conversation ... HGH, as in Human Growth Hormone, is exactly that. Human growth hormone, as in something made by your body... So for actual HGH, you could only test for levels. There are synthetics which I believe have a slightly different signature, so conceivably that could be tested for if you knew all of them. Steroids are testable as a substance, and do stay in the body a while, but not for years. You can't test Barry Bonds now for what he did in 2003. That said, some sports get around this by holding samples of blood or urine for the future. Once possible enhancers are identified, they are tested for after the fact from blood that was drawn during a relevant time period. I think there is probably an issue with how much you draw and how much you can test for -- this isn't CSI where a computer identifies something unknown in your blood (yet) -- you need to know to test for something specific, I believe. But the fact that baseball (or football, I believe) makes no effort to hold these B samples labels their testing as more PR than actual effort to clean up the game. It would be much more difficult to dope if you weren't safe for a lifetime -- if at any time word got out on the designer drug you were using you could get caught.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 18, 2009 2:02:44 GMT -5
SF, that was kind of what I was expecting to hear. Obviously, we can never predict what will and won't be possible with future technology. I was just hoping that maybe ... just maybe ... there might be a scientific test of some sort which would'nt look for levels above this or that. I know that I am suggesting yet another utopian culture, but I had to ask ...
As for storing the samples, while that might (and very well will) be the long term solution, I'm not sure that that answers more questions than it solves. Far too much to address on that issue right now ...
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Feb 18, 2009 13:23:08 GMT -5
As I have often stated, let's knock off the hypocrisy. Cheating of every variety is endemic to baseball, from spitballs to corked bats to watered down infields to stealing signs. I say let anyone use anything they want. Frankly, if they ain't cheating, they ain't trying. As for the role model garbage, if your child worships at the altar of a professional athlete, you're a crappy parent.
|
|
|
Post by JohnJacquesLayup on Feb 18, 2009 14:11:10 GMT -5
Somebody is happy today. It must be because of the stimulus bill law.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 18, 2009 16:35:32 GMT -5
Elvado, I understand your sentiment, but I don't agree with you conclusion. I also don't buy the line that cheating is part of the game and we should accept it. The example everyone always uses is Gaylord Perry and he certainly pushed the envelope for sure. But his antics were as much distraction and showmanship. I heard him say something to the effect that if he got you thinking about all his extraneous movements, that he had already won half the battle. Still, the ball is in plain view and free to be inspected at any time. They will also change the ball a hundred times. I just don't think of that in the same light as juicing up. Now corking the bat is a bit different. I would consider that as cheating above and beyond trying to get an edge on the baseball. I don't exactly know why other than maybe scuffing the ball is accepted to a point. The key is to get as much friction as you can before they take the ball out. As for your other examples -- wetting down the infield and/or growing the grass long for certain teams or stealing signs -- I don't consider them cheating at all. The sing-stealing criticism is kind of silly in my mind. It's just not that hard to mask your signals.,
Finally, I totally agree with you concerning role model.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Feb 18, 2009 17:07:41 GMT -5
Disagree. Throwing a spitball or using an emery board to scuff the ball are EXACTLY the same as using a corked bat. And neither are all the different from using steriods.
They are all cheating.
If they are all OK, then they are all OK. But if not, then not for all of them.
Stealing signs....well, that's just the other team being dumb.
(unless, of course, you are videotaping signs; in that case, you are the Devil and should be flayed alive ;D )
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 18, 2009 17:27:30 GMT -5
Throwing a spitball or using an emery board will get you tossed from the game. So using steroids should as well, right?
Stealing signs is not against the rules in any way.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 20, 2009 13:12:34 GMT -5
Maybe I am just being naive, but I still don't think of a spitter in the same light as a corked bat or steroids. It's more like the batter having a foot "just outside" the lines of the batter's box. Sure, it's technically illegal, but, like moderate speeding, is rather common place. I think the emory board is somewhat of a red herring. Regardless of how they word the rule, the intent is to make doctoring the ball illegal, while rubbing/ruffing it up isn't. A spitball falls in the same category in my mind. The rule is that pitchers can't go to their mouth while they are on the mound. The obvious key is to limit the ability to have and therefore throw a spitter. This rule is suspended during colder games. We understand the comfort of warming one's hands by breathing on them, but if the goal is to eliminate the "illegal" pitch, then shouldn't we tell them to take a friggin' hand warmer out there? That's sort of my point. With regards to spitters or scuffed balls, you are inherantly dealing with a sort of cat and mouse issue. I just don't think of that in the same light as a corked bat or taking performance enhancers.
As I think about it, it could be sort of like a beauty pageant. Implants aren't in the same category as girdles, bras or makeup. Sure, we know there are some enhancements out there, but they aren't all of the same category.
Does that make any sense?
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 20, 2009 16:19:48 GMT -5
Thinking about the steroid issue on a grander scale, I think I have a solution.
I think that all of the assorted issues fall into two general categories. The first is how do we handle what has already happened -- records, hall of fame, what was taken, when was it taken and was it banned at the time etc... The second question is what to do as a gameplan for the future. I think this is a lot more important, but until you divorce that question from the assorted issues in the first category, it is almost impossible to get anywhere.
I think that MLB should adopt a universal steroid testing policy at some point. I don't think random testing is good enough, regardless of how it is administered. Obviously there would be resistance from the players' union. But I think this could be resolved with a few simple details. First off, I think it is important that there is some form of amnesty, at least with regard to this policy. Again, I think how to handle past issues must be divorced from this policy. Secondly, I don't think this first test needs to be made public. I think a structure needs to be established to handle any positive tests. Basically, everyone will know that what they have done in the past starting from now, doesn't matter, but there will be no more steroids period. I think you could convince the players and owners to go along with a policy like that. I think that would also give some sort of closure to this tainted era and give a level and fair starting point for moving forward. Obviously there will be new issues to deal with in the future, but I think this would be a great starting point.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 20, 2009 17:39:45 GMT -5
1. Steroids are cheating much like scuffing the ball and corking the bat, but those two are game-by-game issues. Steroids is a long-term issue and should be treated differently.
2. Steroids have a specific, proven, long-term negative health benefit, while providing a proven short-term improvement.
They are fundamentally different from corked bats and scuffing the baseball because neither of those options shrinks your testicles.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 20, 2009 17:45:44 GMT -5
Oh, and the usual initial reply to the "negative health effects" is that there are lots of negative health effects associated with sports, from jockeys starving themselves to linemen overeating.
With that said, it's still possible to create rules about what's OK and what's not - the NHL does this with what goalies can wear. Banning steroids seems to be a legit line - you can abuse your body on your own, but the use of drugs with the only purpose of improving your physique is off-limits.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 20, 2009 19:45:06 GMT -5
Spitters are illegal is baseball. It's doctoring. I agree there's a degree here, but still, the argument that Roids should be legal because doctoring the ball is legal is kind of silly... because doctoring the ball isn't legal.
It was, once.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 21, 2009 12:19:19 GMT -5
SF, I might have missed something, but I haven't heard anyone saying that steroids should be legal at all. My only point is that I view a "misdemeanor" like scuffing the ball, differently than I do a felony, like juicing or corking the bat. Again, maybe that is just me, but that's my gut instinct.
To use an analogy, for a boxer, would having a little too much salve on your forehead be the same degree of infraction as having an irritant on your gloves? I don't think so.
|
|
ichirohoya
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 535
|
Post by ichirohoya on Jun 17, 2009 10:26:59 GMT -5
I think it says a great deal about how sick we all are of PED discussion that we're all keeping silent over the Sammy Sosa story (lets not call it "news" because, frankly, its not really new and shocking information).
For the foreseeable future are we going to have to live with individual names from that 2003 positive test list leaking to the media every few months? If so, ESPN may become unwatchable. If every 3 or 4 months we hear "___________, who has long been suspected to have been involved with PEDs, is reported to have tested positive for a banned substance in 2003. Will this tranish _________'s legacy and what will it do to _________'s Hall of Fame chances? We will now ask that question to Tim Kurkjian, Peter Gammons, and Buster Olney while rolling lots of footage of ________ hitting home runs. Stay tuned for more of this breaking news story. Again. We repeat. ________ is reported to have tested positive for a banned substance in 2003. We are awaiting comment from Bud Selig."
Just give us the darn list already. If we are going to urinate all over the confidentiality agreement which was in place when the players took these tests, just give us the other 102 names, let ESPN run a few specials (ala their Mitchell Report release party) and lets be done with it. A name here and a name there ad infinitum is maddening and i think, worse for the image of the national pastime than simply getting the whole thing over with.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jun 17, 2009 11:29:38 GMT -5
I'm more annoyed with the witch hunt aspect--certain players are hunted and "outed" and others just get free pass. Either you release all of the names or nobody. Think it's obvious they don't want names getting out due to fear that it would hurt all of the fans who only think the "Awful/Bad/Hated" Bonds and A-Rod are cheating and nobody who is "loveable" would cheat.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 17, 2009 11:44:39 GMT -5
I'm more annoyed with the witch hunt aspect--certain players are hunted and "outed" and others just get free pass. Either you release all of the names or nobody. Think it's obvious they don't want names getting out due to fear that it would hurt all of the fans who only think the "Awful/Bad/Hated" Bonds and A-Rod are cheating and nobody who is "loveable" would cheat. The funniest articles I read are the "Why didn't we know/Why was everyone complicit" articles? Isn't that the job of the press? Finger pointing right at you buddies. Owners, players and coaches certainly knew, but they had millions in incentives not to say anything. That doesn't make it right, but it is understandable. Sportswriters all knew, but they shut up for precious access. Thanks, guys. I know it isn't real journalism, but isn't that your job?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 17, 2009 11:55:48 GMT -5
I could use some steroids today. My allergies are killing me this week.
|
|